4 ms·

Maybe for safety we need more than one ai to balance each other like with nuclear weapons... It's just a stupid short guess about what you're saying. However, i

• TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Might work until the AI starts self-improving. When it does, it's a race, and most likely the first one will win. In general, nukes aren't a good analogy to AGI/ASI. The x-risks of AI are such that you can't use them in MAD fashion; AI is more like increasingly potent engineered pathogen - you can't do MAD with bioweapons, and you're one lab accident away from ruining the day for everyone on the planet.
  • trashtester 3y ago
    It's really hard to know in advance what will happen when AI starts self-improving. It may be that it will cause a hard singularity. But it is also possible that access to compute resources, minerals, energy or something similar will constrain the rate of advance enough that latecomers can catch up. Also, if a single entity gets too far ahead, it may be constrained politically or even militarily. Let's say for instance that OpenAI created an AI able to suddenly design GPU's that outperform Nvidia'. That would be a sign of a quite hard takeoff, as it would quickly lead to MS/OpenAI gaining full control of both software and hardware markets. This would be huge incentive for the US government to either nationalize this AI, make it's IP open source or use some kind of anti-trust measures to slow them down.
    • TeMPOraL 3y ago
      > Also, if a single entity gets too far ahead, it may be constrained politically or even militarily. The problem is, the time between when you notice and when it's too late to act, might be days, or hours, or seconds, or even negative. > Let's say for instance that OpenAI created an AI able to suddenly design GPU's that outperform Nvidia'. That would be a sign of a quite hard takeoff, as it would quickly lead to MS/OpenAI gaining full control of both software and hardware markets. That's solving the wrong problem. If OpenAI creates an AI able to design GPUs better than Nvidia and is general enough, the risk is that it'll arrange for more compute for itself and train an even more capable version of itself. And you might not notice until couple iterations of this happen. > This would be huge incentive for the US government to either nationalize this AI, make it's IP open source or use some kind of anti-trust measures to slow them down. When that happens, the US government better be sending men with guns to forcefully shut the businesses involved down, and getting ready to lob some cruise missiles at some data centers for good measure.
      • trashtester 3y ago
        > The problem is, the time between when you notice and when it's too late to act, might be days, or hours, or seconds, or even negative. I agree. Especially if there is a hard take-off where AGI goes to 100x ASI in hours , days or weeks. Or the AGI could be really hard to detect, even if it took longer to develop. There is certainly a significant existential risk associated with AGI/ASI. However, if we imagine a scenario where AGI was ONLY constrained by algorithms and code, and NOT at all from compute, then this kind of scenario would be much more likely. Lately, though, increases in AI strength have come more from increases in compute than improvements in algorithms. If (which we may hope is the case), an AI explosion requires hardware improvements to take off (even if the AI can design the hardware itself), then we can HOPE that an explosion would be easier to detect. > When that happens, the US government better be sending men with guns to forcefully shut the businesses involved down, All the actions I described are ultimately backed by the government's guns. > and getting ready to lob some cruise missiles at some data centers for good measure. This could be an option if the data center was outside the US. Inside the US, the government can shut off the power, if needed.
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]